ABDUL RASHID WANI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as projected in the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Watcher in the year 1973 and was thereafter, promoted as Forest Guard somewhere in the year 1978. In the year 1989, he was further promoted to the post of Dy. Forester and thereafter Forester in the year 1991. While the respondent-department was in the process of finalization of the seniority of Foresters, it received objections from some of the officials in which allegations were made that the petitioner had forged his Date of Birth. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 vide communication No. 1199-1200/E dated 4.10.2010 called upon the petitioner to submit his matriculation certificate in SWP No. 1437/2010 original within three days. It is claimed by the petitioner that he immediately approached the Zonal Education Officer, Doru, Anantnag for issuance of Date of Birth certificate in his favour. Responding to the request made by the petitioner, the ZEO concerned sought report from the concerned school where the petitioner had studied. The Headmaster of the school concerned reported to the ZEO Doru that the Date of Birth of the petitioner as per the school records was 04.05.1955. This, however, was not accepted by respondent No. 2 who had insisted for the production of his original matriculation certificate. In view of the failure of the petitioner to produce his original matriculation certificate, respondent No. 3 vide his communication No. 6CF(K)/ADM/2010/1694, dated 29.09.2010 requested respondent No. 5 to verify the particulars contained in the photocopy of the certificates which had already been provided to respondent No. 5. It was reported by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 5 that the record of the school for the years 1966-67 was reportedly gutted in a fire incident that allegedly took place in the year 1989. It appears that the process of verification was undertaken by the respondent No. 4 with respect to the Photostat copy of the matriculation certificate provided by the petitioner. On close scrutiny, respondent No. 5 vide his communication dated 4.10.2010, intimated to respondent No. 3 that all particulars mentioned in the Xerox copy of the qualification certificate of the petitioner except the Date of Birth coincide with the Board record. In the aforesaid communication, it was made clear by respondent No. 5 that the Date of Birth of the candidate as recorded in the Board records was actually 4.05.1951 and not 4.05.1954 as indicated in the Xerox copy. It appears that the petitioner feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid communication of respondent No. 5 dated 4.10.2010, approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 1437/2010. This Court vide its order dated 21.10.2010 ordered as under:-

(3.) While the aforesaid petition was pending, there appears to be another development in the matter, inasmuch as, respondent No. 5 purportedly issued a corrigendum to the earlier communication issued by it on 4.10.2010 indicating therein that as per the school and the Board records, the Date of Birth of the petitioner was 4.05.1955 and 4.05.1951 or 4.05.1954. This corrigendum was allegedly issued by the respondent No. 5 vide his No. KD- 455 (VERI) dated 21.10.2010. In tune with the corrigendum aforesaid, revised Date of Birth certificate (Matriculation Certificate) appears to have been issued in favour of the petitioner purportedly by the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education. It is also contended that despite Court directions dated 21.10.2010 (supra), the Divisional Forest Officer, Anantnag issued Forest Order No. 65/2010 dated 26.10.2010 retiring the petitioner on superannuation from govt. service with effect from 30.05.2009. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid forest order as well as the communication of the State Board of School Education dated 29.10.2010 in SWP No. 1478/2010 in which this Court vide its order dated 01.11.2010 directed maintenance of Status Quo with respect to the petitioner. It may also be pertinent to note that the Date of Birth of the petitioner along with twenty others was also investigated by the Crime Branch and challan in this regard was also presented before the competent court of jurisdiction. However, the Crime Branch could prove the allegations during the trial and as a consequence whereof all the accused including the petitioner were also acquitted by the Trial Court.